“THE HEAT IS ON”

Since: Apr 12

Satan IS in "The Church"

#203 Feb 18, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as a child, I knew that Jesus did not have fair skin and blue eyes.
Me too. Of course, He must be made in our image. Oh wait, that's not how it goes, is it?

When I was very young in Sunday School we had different things to color with our crayons, sometimes a depiction of Jesus. I remember how most were passing the white crayon for His skin while I opted for the brown one. Fortunately we had teaching aids that illustrated most as brown/olive skin-tone. Even videos and movies made to this day most often lean towards the fairer American look.

;*:*;

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#204 Feb 18, 2013
loveismygoal wrote:
<quoted text>Afternoon Angelina ..yeah my experience has been much the same ..nothing too drastic or extreme thankfully ..hope all is well your neck of the woods ..suns shining brightly here ..winter is almost over ,thankfully
Afternoon,
hasn't it been a lovely day. Sunshine makes so much difference to everyones mood.

All good here apart from the dreaded man flu hitting hubby. Having to provide lots of TLC. Just hope I don't catch cold from him now.

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#205 Feb 18, 2013
angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>Afternoon,
hasn't it been a lovely day. Sunshine makes so much difference to everyones mood.
All good here apart from the dreaded man flu hitting hubby. Having to provide lots of TLC. Just hope I don't catch cold from him now.
oh no not the dreaded man flu ..hope he feels better soon and you don't catch it ..mines suffering from d.i.y fever ..not sure whos gonna hit who with the hammer first and I predict lots of swearing in the foreseeable future .

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#206 Feb 18, 2013
loveismygoal wrote:
<quoted text>oh no not the dreaded man flu ..hope he feels better soon and you don't catch it ..mines suffering from d.i.y fever ..not sure whos gonna hit who with the hammer first and I predict lots of swearing in the foreseeable future .
Oh pr you. D.I.Y is thankfully not something that happens often in our house. Good luck voiding the hammer.:)
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#207 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
And once again, this is a myth. It rates up there with the Founding Fathers all being deists, and closet atheists.
Galileo's rivals were Aristotelian scientists. And yes, they were scientists.
Read a history book too!

In 380CE the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity, as defined by the first council of Nicaea, the Roman Empire's official religion. Theodosius's decree “explicitly” declared that those who were not followers of Christianity as taught by the first council of Nicaea to be heretics and heresy a crime punishable by death. Secularism in those days was heresy.
Job

San Ramon, CA

#208 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Read a history book too!
In 380CE the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity, as defined by the first council of Nicaea, the Roman Empire's official religion. Theodosius's decree “explicitly” declared that those who were not followers of Christianity as taught by the first council of Nicaea to be heretics and heresy a crime punishable by death. Secularism in those days was heresy.
But Aristotle was not a Christian. Aristotelian science was the accepted science of that day, including the church. Aristotle was a scientist and philosopher, but not a clergyman. What I meant by secular, was the scientists themselves who followed Aristotelian science. Some of them may have been clergymen, but we're talking about a significant period of time, with numerous followers of science that did not originate from the church/clergymen.

Plus, Galileo had a certain amount of support from the church, and he believed in God himself.

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#209 Feb 18, 2013
angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>Oh pr you. D.I.Y is thankfully not something that happens often in our house. Good luck voiding the hammer.:)
major work soon to be started on loft conversion ..just now hes only replacing a metre by a metre of plasterboard in utility room and its just signed sealed and delivered my decision to move into my sisters caravan for the summer ..the gambler is running through my head ..walk away from trouble if you can..im running lol
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#210 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. They said the exact same thing? What exactly did they say?
“Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [Polish] astronomer [Copernicus] who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light-mindedness.”– Philipp Melanchthon, collaborator with Martin Luther, first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation

“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.''- Martin Luther, 1539

“If there were real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe… then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining the passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them… as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs…”– Cardinal Bellarmine
Job wrote:
2. This closed-book idea should draw immediate suspicion from anyone. It's not a scientific statement by any stretch of the imagination.
The book is closed on whether or not the Earth revolves around the Sun because of the scientific evidence and the book is closed on the validity of The Theory of Evolution on the basis of the scientific evidence.
Job wrote:
3. Many meaning who? That's not even logical. Think about that. The "first" scientist?
There, of course, have always been rational thinkers looking at natural phenomenon from a rational point of view, but in those days believers were in control of the Western World and secular science was heresy. Why do think Galileo was put on trial?
Job wrote:
4. I'm not questioning the ability of science, but of the accuracy of dating methods used.
5. I'm talking about the age of the caves.
The caves within New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns National Park were formed 4 million to 6 million years ago. Paula Bauer, management assistant at the park, says that although over 100 caves have been identified, there's a good chance some have not yet been discovered.
http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/story...
6. Which one will tell me whether or not you personally can tell the age of a rock by looking at it, and/or have you personally applied radio-metric dating to make that determination?
You can “believe” that scientists cannot accurately date rocks but even Galileo understood 500 years ago that…

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." - Galileo Galilei
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#211 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
But Aristotle was not a Christian. Aristotelian science was the accepted science of that day, including the church. Aristotle was a scientist and philosopher, but not a clergyman. What I meant by secular, was the scientists themselves who followed Aristotelian science. Some of them may have been clergymen, but we're talking about a significant period of time, with numerous followers of science that did not originate from the church/clergymen.
Plus, Galileo had a certain amount of support from the church, and he believed in God himself.
“Galileo was one of the first modern thinkers to clearly state that the laws of nature are mathematical.…He displayed a peculiar ability to ignore established authorities, most notably Aristotelianism. In broader terms, his work marked another step towards the eventual separation of science from both philosophy and religion; a major development in human thought.”- Wallace,(1984)
Job

United States

#212 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [Polish] astronomer [Copernicus] who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light-mindedness.”– Philipp Melanchthon, collaborator with Martin Luther, first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.''- Martin Luther, 1539
“If there were real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe… then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining the passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them… as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs…”– Cardinal Bellarmine

2. <quoted text>
The book is closed on whether or not the Earth revolves around the Sun because of the scientific evidence and the book is closed on the validity of The Theory of Evolution on the basis of the scientific evidence.
<quoted text>

3. There, of course, have always been rational thinkers looking at natural phenomenon from a rational point of view, but in those days believers were in control of the Western World and secular science was heresy. Why do think Galileo was put on trial?
<quoted text>

4. You can “believe” that scientists cannot accurately date rocks but even Galileo understood 500 years ago that…
"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox." - Galileo Galilei
1. The points being addressed towards evolutionists are their differences of opinion, differences in calculations, and changes in opinions and calculations. These issues are not 'dogmatism'. If we take these issues, and rightfully allow for error, where's the dividing line that mandates that evolution may not itself be questioned? It would be unwise to assume Creationism is wrong just 'because' it's a part of scripture.

2. Aristoltelian scientists believed there was scientific evidence that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

3. Galileo was placed on trial for his rejection of Aristotelian science which became a part a church tradition. His issue was not against Christianity, as he was a Christian. He defied church tradition, not the Bible.

4. The calculations are not infallible. If they were, they wouldn't change.
Job

United States

#213 Feb 18, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
“Galileo was one of the first modern thinkers to clearly state that the laws of nature are mathematical.…He displayed a peculiar ability to ignore established authorities, most notably Aristotelianism. In broader terms, his work marked another step towards the eventual separation of science from both philosophy and religion; a major development in human thought.”- Wallace,(1984)
I don't deny that he was a groundbreaking scientist. And any step towards the supposed eventual separation of science from religion was not made by him. Unfortunately he's become another fabricated hero for the wrong cause/reason. Just like many of the founding fathers. Galileo was a Christian.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#214 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't deny that he was a groundbreaking scientist. And any step towards the supposed eventual separation of science from religion was not made by him. Unfortunately he's become another fabricated hero for the wrong cause/reason. Just like many of the founding fathers. Galileo was a Christian.
Nobody is saying that a Christian cannot accept scientific evidence, but in order to do so you have to be able to put aside any preconceived ideas that may not agree with the evidence just as Galileo and copernicus did. The quote I provided from Cardinal Bellarmine, I think, illustrates the situation very well.

“If there were real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe… then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining the passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them… as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs…”– Cardinal Bellarmine

The scientific evidence was there but he couldn’t put aside his belief that passages of Scripture appear to teach the contrary, so he refused to accept the scientific evidence. He was proved wrong.

The scientific evidence supporting The Theory of Evolution is there and your belief that passages of scripture appear to teach the contrary is the only thing preventing you from accepting the scientific evidence. You also are wrong.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#215 Feb 18, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The points being addressed towards evolutionists are their differences of opinion, differences in calculations, and changes in opinions and calculations. These issues are not 'dogmatism'. If we take these issues, and rightfully allow for error, where's the dividing line that mandates that evolution may not itself be questioned? It would be unwise to assume Creationism is wrong just 'because' it's a part of scripture.
“Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science.… Some …seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called ‘flaws’ in the theory of evolution or ‘disagreements’ within the scientific community.… But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.”- American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals
Job wrote:
2. Aristoltelian scientists believed there was scientific evidence that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Aristotle used what may be called a scientific method. It was not the scientific method we use today.

“Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry.”– Wikipedia, Aristotelian science and empiricism

The scientific method as we know it today did not come about until the 17th century. Aristotelian science was based partly on observation and partly on conjecture. In no case was it allowed to contradict religious beliefs during Galileo's time.
Job wrote:
3. Galileo was placed on trial for his rejection of Aristotelian science which became a part a church tradition. His issue was not against Christianity, as he was a Christian. He defied church tradition, not the Bible.
Galileo was placed on trial by the Christians that weilded political power and could not put aside preconceived religious beliefs and accept the scientific evidence.
Job wrote:
4. The calculations are not infallible. If they were, they wouldn't change.
You obviously don’t understand that the different dates represent changes in various features of the caverns which have occurred over time. There is no disagreement that the processes began about 250 million years ago.
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#216 Feb 18, 2013
The Mail adored him... until they didn't. They were the same with the fascists in the 30s.

They really should learn that people in the real world who act like the Mail writes are usually going to be evil.

Honestly- making a cancer charity give back £3,000. What a bastard.
loveismygoal wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't even know we had this kind of thing going on here ..googled him ..fascinating ..thankfully he only has about three hundred followers according to one report ...still three hundred too many though

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#217 Feb 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The Mail adored him... until they didn't. They were the same with the fascists in the 30s.
They really should learn that people in the real world who act like the Mail writes are usually going to be evil.
Honestly- making a cancer charity give back £3,000. What a bastard.
<quoted text>
I didn't see that one ..seen where he made a cancer charity refuse a ten grand donation though ...yeah I can see where the Mail changed its tune
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#218 Feb 19, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science.… Some …seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called ‘flaws’ in the theory of evolution or ‘disagreements’ within the scientific community.… But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.”- American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals
<quoted text>

2. Aristotle used what may be called a scientific method. It was not the scientific method we use today.

“Aristotle largely ignored inductive reasoning in his treatment of scientific enquiry.”– Wikipedia, Aristotelian science and empiricism
The scientific method as we know it today did not come about until the 17th century. Aristotelian science was based partly on observation and partly on conjecture. In no case was it allowed to contradict religious beliefs during Galileo's time.
<quoted text>

3. Galileo was placed on trial by the Christians that weilded political power and could not put aside preconceived religious beliefs and accept the scientific evidence.
<quoted text>

4. You obviously don’t understand that the different dates represent changes in various features of the caverns which have occurred over time. There is no disagreement that the processes began about 250 million years ago.
1. Yes, you're sold on numbers. You've placed your faith on what fallible man sells to the public. Evolution is a game of politics. I've given you an example of this at least a couple of times.

2. It doesn't matter whether it's used today or not. That's beside the point. Aristotelian science was not a religious based science.

3. This is certainly not the issue today as we don't live in a theocracy. But if you want to make the religion of that day an issue,'which' "science" had/has sole ruler-ship in anti-theistic countries like the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.? If you think creationists in America are somehow ruled by historic European tendencies/biases, what makes you think evolutionists in America don't have a similar link with anti-theistic sentiment that we see in communist countries and various anti-theistic regimes?

4. Actually I do. I also knew that this is the reasoning used for the conflicting dates given for the Carlsbad Caverns. The question is what affiliation do these people have with the CC to be able to speak for them? How do you know that dating is without dispute among scientists?
Thinking

Hounslow, UK

#219 Feb 19, 2013
I believe we're talking about the same thing- as you can see in this corrected article.

www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/02/20/christi...
loveismygoal wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't see that one ..seen where he made a cancer charity refuse a ten grand donation though ...yeah I can see where the Mail changed its tune

Since: Oct 07

Glasgow, UK

#220 Feb 19, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I believe we're talking about the same thing- as you can see in this corrected article.
www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/02/20/christi...
<quoted text>
Ah so it is ..oops one of your words just passed through my mind there ..don't usually use that word but it seems to sum up my feelings on him
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#221 Feb 19, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, you're sold on numbers. You've placed your faith on what fallible man sells to the public..

…and you’ve placed your faith in the literal interpretation of myth and allegory, just as Luther and Bellarmine did. I’ve learned from history that reason and science rather than holy books are the best way to understand the natural world.
Job wrote:
Evolution is a game of politics. I've given you an example of this at least a couple of times.
Scientists accept The Theory of Evolution based on the scientific evidence. The “Holy Inquisition” that used to force people to accept their ideas and their ideas only no longer exists.
Job wrote:
2. It doesn't matter whether it's used today or not. That's beside the point. Aristotelian science was not a religious based science.
Your understanding of history is remarkably poor. Everything in those days was religious based (agreed with pevailing religious beliefs) or it was heresy.
Job wrote:
3. This is certainly not the issue today as we don't live in a theocracy. But if you want to make the religion of that day an issue,'which' "science" had/has sole ruler-ship in anti-theistic countries like the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.? If you think creationists in America are somehow ruled by historic European tendencies/biases, what makes you think evolutionists in America don't have a similar link with anti-theistic sentiment that we see in communist countries and various anti-theistic regimes?
Many Christens have learned the lesson of Galileo you are merely one that has not.

"We recognize science is a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world…”— United Methodist Church

"Leaving humanity out of the evolutionary story makes no scientific sense. The same kinds of evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry that indicate that other species have evolved point in that direction for Homo sapiens, too." — Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

"Evolution helps us see our faithful God in a new way. Our creator works patiently, calling forth life through complex processes spanning billions of years and waiting for us to awaken and respond in conscious participation in God's own overarching dream for all living things. Evolution also helps us see ourselves anew, as creatures who share a common origin with other species…" — United Church of Christ
Job wrote:
4. Actually I do. I also knew that this is the reasoning used for the conflicting dates given for the Carlsbad Caverns. The question is what affiliation do these people have with the CC to be able to speak for them? How do you know that dating is without dispute among scientists?
There are no geologists that dispute it that I am aware of.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#222 Feb 19, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
…and you’ve placed your faith in the literal interpretation of myth and allegory, just as Luther and Bellarmine did. I’ve learned from history that reason and science rather than holy books are the best way to understand the natural world.
2. <quoted text>
Scientists accept The Theory of Evolution based on the scientific evidence. The “Holy Inquisition” that used to force people to accept their ideas and their ideas only no longer exists.
<quoted text>
3. Your understanding of history is remarkably poor. Everything in those days was religious based (agreed with pevailing religious beliefs) or it was heresy.
4. <quoted text>
Many Christens have learned the lesson of Galileo you are merely one that has not.
"We recognize science is a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world…”— United Methodist Church
"Leaving humanity out of the evolutionary story makes no scientific sense. The same kinds of evidence from fossils, comparative anatomy, and biochemistry that indicate that other species have evolved point in that direction for Homo sapiens, too." — Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
"Evolution helps us see our faithful God in a new way. Our creator works patiently, calling forth life through complex processes spanning billions of years and waiting for us to awaken and respond in conscious participation in God's own overarching dream for all living things. Evolution also helps us see ourselves anew, as creatures who share a common origin with other species…" — United Church of Christ
<quoted text>
5. There are no geologists that dispute it that I am aware of.
1. Evolutionists have done what Chevrolet, Southwest Airlines, modern literature, and Hollywood have done. They've run a commercial campaign boasting numbers. Chevrolet and SWA bank on the number of customers, claims of being #1. Books and movies are in hopes that they will be bought because of quotes from various alleged qualified critics. As far as we know, Copernican scientists did none of these. The majority of people of who embrace evolution obviously don't really know why, other than they are overwhelmed by the Evolutionary "pitch" (Apparently some people actually think "Inherit The Wind" is about the "Scopes Monkey Trial"). If Evolution was that obvious, it wouldn't have need to have been programmed into us as it has for so many years by the media. As far as we know, Copernican scientists did none of these.

2. Again, not all scientists accept it. There are enough that don't to suggest anyone that they should think a little bit further than their "Star Trek" view of reality. We don't 'force' any scientific view in the legal sense. We choose to 'program' via media/commercialism to "force feed" it.

3. I think the problem is just your not understanding me. Maybe this question may help in understanding what I mean by "religious based", and then we can go from there:
What religion was Aristotle?

4. AKA "Evolution, best-selling theory in America (or "worldwide" depending on who's being pitched)" -(Fill in the blank with the scientific equivalent of Siskel & Ebert).

5. And this I take it, means there isn't any? Personally, I don't think it's something they want to publicize.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evoution Frauds 26 min Gary Coaldigger 67
sad 1 hr Lauren 7
Let's talk about God's definition of love 1 hr Huntington Guy 587
Where Did the Devil Come From? (May '08) 3 hr dollarsbill 419
happy birthday, jesus!!! 4 hr Anonymous 11
God lied and sepent/satan told truth (Jul '10) 4 hr dollarsbill 158
Is America the most immoral.. 4 hr dollarsbill 2
Answer This,If You Will and If You Can... 5 hr dollarsbill 112
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 7 hr purplelady1040 18,512
From The Desk Of Pastor LDM 8 hr dollarsbill 77
More from around the web